I think that every healthy language, even such a constructed one as Interlingua, should evolve, as well as viewpoints on it evolve; but with that process some bugs can emerge, on the other hand the old solutions could be seen unsufficient no more, i.e. obsolete. I've set this thread to make a place to talk about and to share with doubts or problems found inside the standard Interlingua. By Standard Interlingua, I mean a language described in official documents for grammar and vocabulary. Compared to that, I want to see Interlingua in practice : how does it really work ?Therefore, I think, it would be also worthwhile to take a closer look at nowadays Interlingua translations that are given to read for the wider public. Is there everything compatible with official papers ? if not : what's the reason ? And even if it is actually compatible, is it... tasteful ? Recently, I've found such an opinion about Interlingua :

What do you think ? Agree ? Disagree ? Too harsh ? Frankly for me, it has rung a bit in my head. But what opinion do you get in feedback talking about Interlingua ?Let's talk about this and other issues.

===BTW, just a little thing : opening the forum after identification, you can read :tu ha essite identificate con successo - which looks clumsy (of course, at least for me) and sounds like a copy-cat from English : you have been identified successfully or sth ? I wonder if there is any chance to write it... nicer ?

To me, IALA Interlingua feels quite natural and comfortable. I may not be totally fluent in writing (and have never had a chance to speak it or even hear much of it), but to me it has all the feel of a natural language. Like many languages, it might need a new vocabulary item from time to time (usually nouns, occasionally adjectives or verbs) in order to accommodate new human experiences, but I think it does not need any structural changes. It works quite well as it is. One of the issues for constructed international auxiliary languages is that somebody comes along and thinks that s/he has a better idea to "improve" the language. No. Stability is crucial for the success of a conIAL. If I have not mentioned it before, see my essay "Thoughts on IAL Success" at http://www.panix.com/~bartlett/thoughts.html . We must have stability.

Well, I would a bit disagree here. Yes : stability is a value, but the reasonable stability. BTW, some Czech linguist once described language itself as an "elastic stability" observing for example that elements which occur very often in a daily speech tend to be very stable in its form. I'm for evolution, not for radical changes (unless obvious mistakes, of course). Rather to put some more options on the table to use, it's still better than to stick with one option in the box. I guess so.

Interlingua is more like a natural language than some other auxiliary languages. I-a is a little more consistent with respect to natural languages, but not as rigidly so, than some constructed languages as Ido, Esperanto, Suma, aUI, Sona, and others.

The Interlingua-English Dictionary, an authoritative source, gives 'equo' as a word for 'horse' in addition to 'cavallo', Some other I-a/English dictionaries also list 'equo'. We should note that in English alone, there are multiple derivatives, such as equine, equestrian, equerry, equid, and possibly others. I myself would find 'equo' acceptable and would in fact be more likely to use it myself, as being more familiar.

The point is that (not just with respect to 'cavallo'/'equo') I-a strives for both regularity and etymological consistency, and in some instances there need to be decisions made with respect to the two principles. Almost anyone can quibble with respect to this or that point of some auxiliary language, but not everything will satisfy everyone in respect to everything.

bartlett scribeva:Interlingua is more like a natural language than some other auxiliary languages. I-a is a little more consistent with respect to natural languages, but not as rigidly so, than some constructed languages as Ido, Esperanto, Suma, aUI, Sona, and others.

Thanks for your answer. The fact that I-a is not so rigidly consistent as other conlangs are isn't sth that much bothers me (don't know how about you). But later you write sth quite interesting :

The point is that (...) I-a strives for both regularity and etymological consistency, and in some instances there need to be decisions made with respect to the two principles.

What interests me is what happens in I-a when these two principles come into conflict ? What prevails ? How to decide ? Ask Mulaik what he thinks about it ? And later it goes :

Almost anyone can quibble with respect to this or that point of some auxiliary language, but not everything will satisfy everyone in respect to everything.

I'm not sure if I understand you at this point : if I choose to write caBallo (cf. L. caballus) or scriVer (cf. It. scrivere) would it be all right, anyway ? Just wonder, it's not that I've got some proper answer for that.Regards,Marco

Italian has scrivere, but Spanish has escribir, German has schreiben, English has scribe (also prescribe, subscribe).

Italian has dovere and French has devoir, but Spanish has deber, English has debt and German has Debit. [Edit: the latter is a bit dubious, because it was only recently acquired from English and only appears in words like Debitkarte=debit card]

Spanish has caballo, but Italian has cavallo, French has cheval, English has cavalry, German has Kavallerie and Kavalier.